## Facts

- Numerous federal product-liability actions alleged injuries from DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.’s Pinnacle total hip replacement system, particularly the metal-on-metal configuration.
- Plaintiffs generally alleged defective design and inadequate warnings, with claimed complications including metallosis, instability, and the need for revision surgery.
- Actions were pending in multiple federal districts, creating overlap in discovery and pretrial motion practice concerning design, testing, marketing, labeling, and post-market surveillance.
- Motions were filed seeking transfer and centralization for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407; some parties opposed centralization or disputed the appropriate transferee forum.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 2244 and selected the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) as the transferee forum, assigning the matter to Judge James E. Kinkeade.

## Issues

1. Whether the Pinnacle hip implant product-liability actions pending in different districts involved common questions of fact warranting centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
2. If centralization was warranted, which district and judge should be selected as the transferee forum.

## Decision

- The Panel ordered centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, finding the actions involved common questions of fact.
- The Panel concluded that transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and advance just and efficient conduct by reducing duplicative discovery and limiting inconsistent pretrial rulings.
- The Panel selected the Northern District of Texas as the transferee district and assigned coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings to Judge Kinkeade.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), transfer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings is permitted when actions pending in multiple districts share one or more common questions of fact and transfer will (1) be convenient for parties and witnesses and (2) promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- Centralization is appropriate where overlapping factual issues would otherwise require duplicative discovery and risk inconsistent pretrial rulings across districts.
- In selecting a transferee forum, the Panel considers factors such as the location and distribution of cases, the suitability and capacity of the proposed court, and the expected efficiency gains from centralized management.

## Conclusion

The Panel centralized the federal Pinnacle hip implant cases in the Northern District of Texas under § 1407 because the actions shared core factual questions regarding the device’s design and warnings, and consolidation would streamline discovery and pretrial proceedings while reducing inconsistent rulings.


In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (J.P.M.L. 2011)